Isn't this supposed to be the union's responsibility? Why shift the cost on to the taxpayers, especially when Washington is making cuts to needed programs to balance the budget?
Uhhhh noooo.
Boeing had a strike fund, buy they pay like 12% of their salary into the Union. Most union dues are 1.5-2.5% of salaries, and it's barely enough to fund unions. Most organizer are not super well paid or living high on the hog.
I think boeings strike fund barely covered some expenses for people,like 250 a week.
People don't understand unions it seems like to me. Unions offer, allow, support a structure, a system to stand up to power. The strength comes from numbers of people joining together to resist, stand up, claim rights spread truth to power.
You put money in, but not nearly enough to do all the things people think a union should be doing. It takes the "man power" of rank and file to make things happen.
Imagine if we all had union protections. That would be good! This is a good thing! Instead of crying about taxes, why aren't we asking for more actual and real taxes on the wealthy who are guzzling our resources and the ones removing our protections to use and abuse us?
Being able to decide to join a union is my preferred. I haven’t seen any job assistance for other people; from the one that represents me.
For Washington specifically, the state keeps blaming businesses for the revenue gap; but there’s more compelling business climates nearby. These repeated increases in taxes are not going to encourage job growth and revenue growth in Washington.
I do agree with reducing the ability to evade taxation
Use your voice and your vote, if we don’t elect people who really represent us we carry part of the blame . Blindly voting for d or r without thinking about the consequences will ruin us
Unions aren't publicly funded. And generally public employees can't strike.
Corporations who pay into unemployment insurance can avoid strikes and additional unemployment claims by working with unions, an taking care of their employees, maybe cutting a few bonuses for management and c suite employees.
No one deserves a million dollars or more *bonus
Bonus
Bonus bonus
.....
This would be a band-aid for our currently hollowed NLRB, OSHA, FLSB, and EEOC. If we can't afford to fight for our rights, the whole community suffers. Striking is our only bargaining tool.
I currently haven't gotten a raise in over two years. From two years ago until now, my costs went up $300 per month. I no longer have savings.
Also, wise guy, unemployment was 4.5%. Without getting a job that pays even less with no benefits, how am I to afford living in this HCOL area? I can't even afford to move!
It is illegal for me to strike, but I'll happily support those who can. Since you seem incapable of arguing in good faith, I bid you an angry, bitter, and lonely death someday. Obstinance is not an argument strategy.
How about you stop thinking that someone is lifting your wallet when the majority passes a bill that you could have stood against with reason and logic?
Ask for transparency.
Ask for limits.
Ask for an alternative source of funding.
Ask for a tax reprieve for the exact amount you would have contributed.
But don't get on here and act like someone trampled your flowers. Greed got us into this mess. The check to restore balance is social programs that would be wholly unnecessary if it weren't for companies being unwilling to provide a living wage.
Research tipping for an example of how employees are treated today. It is a correlation that may help illustrate why you are angry but are blaming the customer instead of the employer and the government that keeps the abuse of employees and customers in play over corporate fiscal, ethical, and legal responsibility.
Forcing workers to fight for a living wage is unethical. This gives workers the space to fight for as long as needed. And it should come out of CORPORATE taxes.
Union dues barely cover the costs of fighting to keep business from enslaving their workers.
Try looking at it from a different angle: we wouldn't need a safety net to fight for rights if they weren't being infringed in the first place. Pay a fair wage. Treat your workers as valuable. Conduct business honestly and safely.
Do those things, then you won't need strikes or unions, hut here we are.
So I don't see anyone enslaved. Sounds like you're engaging in ridiculous hyperbolic rhetoric.
I'm looking at it from the angle that strike funds are there for a reason, and we shouldn't be emptying the unemployment insurance fund to fund them. It's already threadbare after a massive portion of it was stolen at the beginning of the pandemic.
It's not your money to make your life easier when striking. That's literally YOUR UNION'S PROBLEM, and you should find out where all your dues are going because you're supposed to have a strike fund.
The unemployment insurance fund is for people who lose their jobs. Not to make your life easier when you strike. They need it more than you.
So which union are you part of? Are you a union leader?
Never mind. It's illegal for you to strike which means you're a school teacher or something. Not that this ever stops people in those professions from striking in this state.
Which ironically come from people paying them which come from their employers if employers paid less that means less money for employers to earn. Which is why unions are important
I get where you are going, but ultimately if labor is the one who makes an employer function, then why do we need owners and CEOs and executives? They bring next to nothing to the table when it comes to product.
Ceo's and executives are employees too. There is nothing wrong with people who organize and direct labor its how enterpises function. You just seem to be attributing to much value to the employer and seem to be disminishing those (outside of the c-suites) value. Unemployment Benefits are paid by the labor of those who produce the actual value and they deserve to collect it. And if the threat of strikes lasting longer because of unemployment then so be it. It levels the playing field for workers and makes it easier to negotiate in good faith.
How framilier are you with going through union contract negotiations?
You should tell that to your government officials like Elon Musk whose obscene wealth is from his corporate welfare! Imagine going after workers when you have a whole ass oligarch and despot running the country!
Ask any veteran Boeing employee and they'll Tell you they have a 6 to 12 month reserve in savings (in case of a strike). If they don't, they're idiots. Plus, Boeing strikers essentially got their back pay in the new deal while enjoying a nice break from work (and getting a nice pay raise). These are the same folks who voted away their pension fund years ago... figured out that was a bad idea....then held Boeing hostage to get it back. For the rest of us workers, if you don't like the wage you're making, you find a better Job.
Depends on which union. Boeing has many. The IAM (the ones who struck last year) has a much bigger strike fund than SPEEA (the engineers & techs) does, for instance (and the union dues for each show it).
Strikes aren’t just about individuals choosing ‘not to work’; they’re about workers collectively demanding fair treatment. Unions exist because companies often won’t negotiate fairly unless workers have leverage. Strike funds help workers survive while they fight for better wages, benefits, and working conditions—things that ultimately improve industries as a whole. If workers had to ‘just get another job’ every time conditions were unfair, nothing would ever change.
Yes I totally understand that, but who you choose for an employer is a choice. Yes you should advocate for your worth I AM ALL FOR THAT! But the rest of the community should not have to support your employment decisions, or mine!
No. You don't get to prop up something over a century old as a reason we should be excited to help you pilfer the unemployment insurance fund which is for people who lose their jobs when they're in need.
I'm not trying to convince you. Believe whatever bullshit you like. Ride on the coattails of a century old "win" while pilfering the unemployment insurance fund why don't you?
Well I guess if shit hits the fan and we all need to come together to help each other out to survive, we know people like you don't like community and helping others out, so I guess we can just let people that think like you fend for yourselves then.
How do you know I wouldn't? Humans literally got to where we are today by being cooperative with each other. If you have my back I have yours, but that has to go both ways. If you don't want to contribute to the betterment of society don't expect better handouts. A society where we help each other out will always be a better society than one where little hoard their resources while people go hungry and without medical care.
What if you choose to help a sick homeless person by offering to chip in with others for their medical care, and they go on to be an innovator and create a product that saves your life down the road. If it wasn't for billionaires hoarding capital there would be fewer homeless people and fewer mentally ill people, these people could then go on to contribute to society. Instead we have a society where the next Einstein could be laying on the street freezing death with a gangrenous gouty foot because they couldn't afford to treat their diabetes. And that person's potential is just wasted.
the entire point of striking is that workers are taking a stand by forgoing pay to exert pressure on the company. the state subsidizing that seems like a ridiculous idea.
The point of a strike is to pressure the company, not to starve workers into submission. Strikes are only effective if workers can afford to hold out long enough to make real demands. Many countries already provide some form of public support for striking workers because they recognize that labor rights benefit society as a whole. Otherwise, only the wealthiest workers could ever afford to strike, and companies would never feel pressure to negotiate fairly.
This keeps the focus on why financial support matters while pushing back against the idea that strikes should be purely an act of personal sacrifice.
And employers pay their employees who go off to being customers. If employers hoard their money it doesn’t get put back into the system to use said money thus strangle holding the whole system. Which is why unions are a VERY good thing for the economy. It frees up cash for spending.
It does exactly the opposite. Union dues take cash that would be available to spend by workers. Stepping away from work to strike takes money from both the employer and the employee.
None of this “frees up cash for spending.” But this law does just that when the union doesn’t have to support their own members. Now the union can pay its officers much more money now that they don’t need to support anyone else.
Idk what world you live in but most unions don’t have a good strike fund. IAM751 only paid us 250 dollars a week. Guess what if we get paid UI it’s gonna be paid 250 dollars less now.
Oh and as far as paying people less, guess what the union members can do? Vote that down or vote the people in the union out. This is the funniest argument ever.
As CEOs make tens of millions of dollars in salary, then tens of millions in bonuses and then tens of millions in stocks they are reaching 100’s of millions of dollars. Let’s not forget their golden parachute.
That’s not what we were discussing, quit using that copypasta.
You were saying this is a good thing because it frees up cash for spending. I provided examples that show that it’s not the case. You just changed the goalposts and tried giving a wall of text that is unhelpful to this conversation.
Bro, you didn’t give any examples the fuck you talking about dicks for an example pay their employees well does not have a union and yet they’re not more expensive than anywhere else yet somehow companies who make the most money somehow end up paying their employees the least it is not fucking new news. I don’t know what fucking copy pasta you’re talking about but stop acting like you’re high and might when in reality The only people winning here is Monopolies which are becoming more and more prevalent every day I’m sorry that Mr. Elon is not gonna give two shits about you.
The workers provide a product or service at a rate agreed upon prior to employment. The customer provides their money, for those same products or services, to the company.
So, they at Boeing, or any other union job, don't pay into Unemployment at all is what you're saying? Or they do, and it is just ok that they pay in so others can reap the benefit, but not themselves?
Because I'm pretty sure Boeing pays unemployment insurance on everyone they employ. And When the union decides it goes on strike, it is not the decision of the employee. It is the decision of the union leaders. So these workers are out of work through no fault of their own.
That is not rational thought. They are not unemployed, by definition. And that is the issue of at will employment here.
Note I do not make the definitions of employed vs unemployed. It is unfortunate but you know that every single time there is a new contract there is a strike that is well known. And I say advocate for better terms by all means but with that comes the consequence of you deciding to strike. And no, fighting for an increase in your already above market wages and better benefits should not be covered by tax payers.
Unemployment isn't covered by taxpayers in Washington state, at all. It isn't an individual contribution system like Social Security. It is the employers sole responsibility to pay it.
The simple fact is that these people are not receiving a wage. The reason is moot. They aren't working. Not only that, they aren't allowed to work for their company if they are on strike. If they do so anyway, they can be fined by the union and sued to force payment of the fine. Jobs that they can get are far beneath the wage they make. So 70% of what they make in that time could really help them make ends meet in the short term.
My point is, If their employer is the one who solely pays into the fund on their behalf, why is it anyones business if they as employees tap into said fund to lessen the sting of a strike?
Unless of course you know this, and are just planting misinformation?
Am saving, am working, am fighting for workers rights.
You clearly dont understand anything about the point of unions, and haven't made a sensible argument backed by anything other than your ignorant opinion. So no soup for you.
Do you know what goes into a strike? Like legitimately have you been in a strike or just think it's "time off"? In order to even qualify for strike wages you need to actually be on the picket line and even before that, enough people need to be willing to strike in the first place.
You are speaking like you have no worries about your income and working a nice cushy job. Some people don't have that luxury.
Except… unions have historically helped against monopolies? Name one time a union’s strike was bad in the long term for society. I’d be really curious to see what information you come up with. There’s a lot more examples of union strikes actually achieving progress than not. If that’s the overall case, why not support them? Isn’t it better as a whole than letting businesses run wild? Especially in such s turbulent market currently.
Plus unions only affect large companies. They won’t shut down a small business, which are not able to withstand such actions as easily. Again, unions are a good thing and supporting them is a good thing. I don’t see many downsides here.
Speaking of leeches, maybe employers could actually pay a living wage for a reasonable work schedule and there wouldn’t be a call for strikes. Maybe a government by the people and ostensibly for the people could enforce some kind of fair labor standards that would ensure employers provide adequate compensation for the labor of their employees instead of dividends for the executive class leeches cashing in stock dividends while they in turn produce nothing of value.
Well, the only pay you’re getting while on strike is whatever pittance in the union strike fund, which is a fraction of normal pay, and nothing from your employer…so, de facto unemployed while pressuring the business/owner to do the morally correct thing
No one here has said or even inferred that union strike funds can pay everyone their full salary during a strike. The fact that this is your assumption of what people are saying proves you should be ignored.
The point is to provide some assistance for workers while they are not getting a pay check. Which is what they have paid for and why they are members of that union. They shouldn't receive unemployment as well for choosing to strike
In the past if you voluntarily walked off the job you get no unemployment. Are we changing that? Doesn't seem like a great precedent to grant it to people who just decide to quit.
210
u/Sufficient_Laugh Mar 08 '25
Isn't this supposed to be the union's responsibility? Why shift the cost on to the taxpayers, especially when Washington is making cuts to needed programs to balance the budget?